Florida construction lawyers helping those injured at or near construction zones typically have a good idea of who to sue for their client’s personal injury case. Yet, personal injury lawyers here in South Florida do make mistakes during the course of their client’s construction injury case. However, small mistakes may go unnoticed and ultimately not affect the outcome of a case, but significant blunders could potentially cost the person injured at a construction site hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

As a North Miami Beach construction injury lawyer, a significant mistake that I have come to recognize that cannot be made is the decision of who to sue in a personal injury case. When injury occurs at or near a construction site, naturally the finger of blame is pointed immediately at the general contractor in charge of the construction zone. While it is indeed the general contractor that ultimately won the bid for the construction project and typically bears the most responsibility, several other construction companies are involved as well. In other words, these other construction companies may also be liable for the personal injury for which you have retained a South Florida lawyer.

Far too often, Florida lawyers that help clients injured in construction accidents file a lawsuit against only the general contractor and proceed with litigation. Come time for mediation or settlement, the client agrees to a specific settlement amount with the general contractor and before funds are disbursed, a “release of claims” is signed by the client. And the moment the injured client signs on that dotted line releasing the general contractor from the personal injury lawsuit, all of the sub-contractors breathe a collective sigh of relief, for they all just dodged a major bullet.

As a Fort Lauderdale construction lawyer, I urge all clients injured in an accident at or near a construction area to question your attorney on this issue. Often times, when an accident occurs in a construction zone, the general contractor is not the only party responsible. When that contractor wins the bid to perform the construction, the company most likely needs to employ several other construction companies (i.e. sub-contractors) to assist with the project. And when an injury occurs on a construction site, Florida lawyers are quick to blame the general contractor, but it is necessary to take that extra step and challenge the work of the sub-contractors as well. Because more times than not, this adds a couple extra zeros to the settlement.

If you or someone you know was injured in a car accident at or near a construction zone, contact our Florida construction lawyers today.

Being a North Miami construction lawyer that helps those injured in car accidents on highways, I frequently come across road blocks (no pun intended) in litigation when trying to sue the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”). Florida personal injury lawyers are always aggressive, but when it comes to attacking the Department of Transportation, the FDOT typically hides behind the shield of sovereign immunity. Florida Statute 768.28 details sovereign immunity, and is almost always cited in arguments by the FDOT.

Not to delve into an entire legal thesis, but essentially the FDOT is immune from construction litigation arising out of an injury resulting from “faulty” roadway or highway design. So, for any South Florida driver that is injured in a car accident and retains a lawyer to sue the FDOT because the highway was designed improperly or dangerously, be prepared for intense litigation.

As a South Florida construction injury lawyer, I have many cases against the Department of Transportation despite the presence of sovereign immunity. In fact, today we are in mediation for a highway car accident on I-95 in Miami involving the FDOT, as well as several other contractors. The car accident occurred back in 2008 and involved the newly installed “Express Lanes.” Essentially, these express lanes are two toll lanes that are separated from the rest of traffic through the use of high performance highway tubular delineators. These delineators are essentially large tube-like plastic poles that are often utilized by construction companies for the separation of traffic.

My client had been traveling on I-95 and became trapped in these “Express Lanes.” Unbeknownst to her, when driving within these lanes, no exit is possible for over 10 miles. However, my client had to exit the highway prior to the end of the toll lanes, so she attempted to travel through the delineators in order to exit the highway. Since these delineators were 20 feet apart, it gave drivers the appearance that travelling in between them was indeed possible — but it was not possible. Unfortunately, my client crashed her car and had been involved in a near-death car accident. Fire rescue and ambulances arrived to the scene instantly and thankfully her life was spared.

A major defendant in this construction car accident case is the Florida Department of Transportation. As expected, a major defense of the FDOT is sovereign immunity. So, how do you sue the Department of Transportation for this Florida highway construction car accident? Most Florida lawyers should be familiar with the exception to sovereign immunity. Simply stated, or as simply as one could state this complex area of law, when a dangerous condition exists that is known by the state (i.e. FDOT), the state owes a duty to the general public, such as my client, to warn of this known dangerous condition.

Ultimately, certain precautions must be taken by the state when undertaking construction projects on Florida’s highways. Especially when a project involves a complete transformation of a highway, the Florida Department of Transportation has a duty to warn and inform the public of this drastic change to a roadway that hundreds of thousands travel on every single day.

Being an Aventura lawyer that sues the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) for construction site injuries, I have been finding that the Florida Legislature is making it increasingly difficult for my clients to bring a lawsuit. However, the Florida Legislature does not make it impossible to sue the DOT.

Just this morning, I was before 11th Judicial Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County Judge Marc Schumacher on a Motion to Dismiss. We had initially filed a Complaint on behalf of our client injured in a tragic car crash involving the express lanes on Interstate 95 northbound in Miami. The accident had occurred on the very first day that the express lanes opened in July 2008, which many remember as being an extremely chaotic day on I-95. Construction was not yet finished when these lanes were opened, and as a result, confusion spread among South Florida drivers. Many car accidents occurred, and naturally, several South Florida lawyers received calls from injured drivers. One of those injured drivers was my client, which ultimately led to us filing a Complaint against the Florida Department of Transportation and several contractors hired by the FDOT to perform work on the 95 Express Lanes Project.

Immediately, without submitting any type of answer to our Complaint, the FDOT filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of Sovereign Immunity identified in Florida Statute Section 768.28. Basically, if you are injured in a car accident or construction accident, your lawyer will most likely inform you that the law in Florida prevents lawsuits against the state because of sovereign immunity. But does this mean that the state is immune from all negligent acts?

According to Florida law, the state is immune from acts committed that are defined as “planning level” or “decision-making” functions. For example, if a person is injured in a car accident on a highway in North Miami and their lawyer wants to sue the state of Florida because the road was negligently designed, then the state will be immune — as this falls within the “planning” or “decision” function of the state. However, the Florida Supreme Court does point out an exception to this immunity.

In the landmark case of “Department of Transportation v. Neilson,” the issue of sovereign immunity was directly addressed — which in fact was the very issue argued before Judge Schumacher this morning. The Supreme Court in “Neilson” established an exception for when an injured person may sue the state. So, if an accident occurs and the injured person contends that the state is responsible, then he or she must prove the following elements: (1) governmental entity created a known dangerous condition; (2) that known dangerous condition was not readily observable to the public; and (3) the state failed to provide adequate warning informing the public of this dangerous condition.

Essentially, if the state fails to adequately warn the public of a known dangerous condition that they created, then a person injured in a car accident, construction accident, or any accident for that matter, may bring a lawsuit against the state for negligence. Because of this exception laid down in the “Neilson” case, I was successful in my hearing this morning, thus preventing this very significant I-95 Express Lanes case from being dismissed.

If you or someone you know was injured in an accident involving a governmental entity, then please contact us today.